|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver

Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species
#5518381 - 04/15/06 09:28 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
All this hype over a pinkish-lavender spored cube has got me curious. I know spore color is often used in identification of fungi. so what do those with some taxonomy experience think of this for higher fungi? Example the woods behind my hose contain an easily recognized 5 different Pluerotus species.One can take spores from phenotypicaly identical fruits and get a different spore color from each, the most common is the blue-grey oyster which I have printed from whitish grey to pinkish. WHAT A PINKISH SPORED PLUEROTUS! see where I am going? many of the basidiomycetes display variations in spore color within a designated species.So where does this oddly colored Cube fit in? IMO the same place as the pinkish spored blue oyster, odd but not spectacular. So why is a reddish spored cube so important? Marketing. If spore color meant anything in comercial production the red-spore would have been printed and shelved. Indeed if spore color means anything at all. Spore size,shape and the basidia it falls from are far more accurate than color as identifiers and genetic markers. WR
-------------------- To old for this place
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: whiterasta]
#5518491 - 04/15/06 10:21 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It's interesting in that it's rare. All of my prints except for the redboys are nearly jet black. Spore color makes an excellent identifier for our cross-breeding experiments, and it must be admitted that both pf's brown spores and the redboy's lavender spores show a larger variation from the norm than you find by comparing EQ, PR, GT, etc. Such makes both strains significant to the community. Since both breed true and produce spores of the same color as the parents, they each truly deserve to be called 'strains', but both also show physically that they are obviously of the same species, not a new one.
To be fair, Peele and I gave away the Redboy for free to the community, and it also appears that pf has given his mushroom away for free after seeing a Redboy print that hippie3 sent him. Marketing is not a factor here. Bragging rights maybe, but not marketing. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: whiterasta]
#5523327 - 04/17/06 01:44 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Spore colours, like the whole host of microscopic and macroscopic variables are only indicative of species. As an example, Guzman incorrectly delineated Ps.eucalypta because it had slightly less lageniform cystidia and a lighter purple spore print than subaeruginosa. But compatibility tests conducted seperately both demonstrated that it was the same. So, as spore colours can range within a species in that example and in the redboy it isnt always the best indicator.
Sorry Rabbit - i think you will find that PF will be capitalising on his 'new species' red boy all the way.
--------------------
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5640573 - 05/17/06 12:53 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> I know spore color is often used in identification of fungi. so what do those with some taxonomy experience think of this for higher fungi?
It really has no relevance whatsoever. PF is erroneous in suggesting that the redspore phenotype makes this a new species. There is a great lack of basic taxonomy knowledge amongst even the most knowledgeable of this group. Of course, I'm no expert and I learn new things or gain a better understanding all the time by reading, discussing, and debating things here.
Hopefully you will find my explanation enlightening. The earliest known system of classifying forms of life comes from the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who classified all living organisms known at that time as either a plant or an animal. He further classified animals based on their means of transportation (air, land, or water). Back in the old days there was no understanding of modern genetics, nor was there any way to sequence DNA. Fungi were even, at one time, placed in the plant kingdom! Taxonomy was determined entirely by phenotypic characteristics. If something looked different (macro or microscopically) then it was assigned a different species name. Breeding experiments also played a role, but with the 60,000+ species of fungi found in the wild, relatively few were cultured and studied. Relationships between them were simply too complex to understand so mating experiments were/are normally only done when there is a major dispute over taxonomic classification. Taxonomy got pretty complicated and sophisticated, yet the distinctions remained entirely arbitrary.
Enter DNA sequencing... Now we had an entirely new way to separate species and genre based on genetic similarities. (genotype rather than phenotype) It also provided a good way to properly determine the relationships between dissimilar species, genre, and phylums. It was a lot better than just guessing based on a group of vague similarities. This is called molecular systematics.
Classification based on physical characteristics is no longer considered valid. It's still used to make educated guesses, but it's always subject to revision whenever the DNA sequence becomes available. Nowdays it's easy to classify organisms. You simply sequence the 16s region (for bacteria) or the 18s region in eukaryotes. You then feed the sequence into a computer program and BAM it constructs a phylogenetic tree. This tree tells you the relationship of each organism to the others. To determine species boundaries you can then go with classic organization and/or mating compatibility. If two organisms can't interbreed then they are separate species. Once a species loses the ability to interbreed then they are permanently committed to divergent evolutionary paths. That is why mating compatibility is the major factor in determining if two individuals belong to different species or only a different strain. The term "strain" is weak and not clearly defined. Any individuals that aren't exactly identical could be called different strains. The use of the term strain only makes sense though if there are some measurable and heritable characteristics that differentiate it from other strains.
The redspore may well have only a single base pair different from the PF strain. It certainly doesn't qualify as a different species. If you measured the reversion rate you could get an idea of how significant the mutation is. From what I understand no reversions have been noted. Therefore it probably has more than just a point mutation.
The professor may be a little behind on modern genetics, and he may have some crazy ideas... But he has done more for our cause than any other single person alive or dead. It really pisses me off to see people dissing him and not giving him the respect he deserves. You wouldn't have this board today if it wasn't for him and it's a crying shame that people would use this forum to insult and belittle him. If this were a scientific conference I would drag you outside and beat the living piss out of you. More accurately I would have someone else do it, or roll over your foot and then beat you to the ground.
Sorry to go off about another thread in this one, but most of you probably know what I'm talking about.
As to the utility of the redspore/redboy... An easily spotted phenotype like this one is a very good genetic marker and an extremely useful tool for advanced breeders. Belittling the utility or importance of these mutant strains only shows your ignorance WR.
-FF
-------------------- It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed "If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP) I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: fastfred]
#5640670 - 05/17/06 01:31 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Props to PF.
I was buying spores from him in 1998 before anybody else was selling them. --------------------
Spore color is an invaluable starting point for identification. The key in Arora's Mushrooms Demystified starts with spore color.
I am fascinated by taxonomy. It seems to me that we should take a pragmatic approach to naming mushrooms, and this may include two systems of nomenclature: one from the DNA suggested lineage, and one from from the perspective of consuming the mushroom. In the later system, genetic distinctions like those which separate the Honey Mushrooms, would be superfluous.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: shroomydan]
#5640701 - 05/17/06 01:45 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm curious how your system of nomenclature would work... How would it be organized and who would make the distinctions? The problem I see is that it would be entirely arbitrary. The interesting aspect would be that only trippers would be in the know. It recognizes that the most important part of the mushroom is hidden and secret from all except those who consume it. Very interesting...
Imagine looking at a mushroom and knowing the thousands of worlds, millions of miles, and limitless realities contained in it compared to everyone else who just sees a small mushroom. Kind of like knowing the difference between a 250lb conventional bomb and a 100 megaton nuke. Trippy...
-FF
-------------------- It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed "If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP) I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: fastfred]
#5640736 - 05/17/06 02:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Any system of nomenclature is arbitrary, though not entirely so. Arora mentions that some recognize only two kinds of mushrooms, "pickers and kickers". I think I would start with three phyla: Poisonous (with genera designated by toxin chemicals), Edible (genera designated by common names Morel, Chanterelle, Honey Mushroom etc,), Medicinal (also subdivided by active chemicals; Psilocybian would be a genus inclusive of all mushrooms containing psilocybin and/or psilocin).
|
psych7
Deadhead of Arabia


Registered: 12/13/10
Posts: 11
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: shroomydan]
#15656353 - 01/12/12 04:42 PM (12 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
Me too haha
-------------------- "It seems that all this life, was just a dream"
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Spores, usefull identifiers or variable within species [Re: whiterasta]
#15659418 - 01/12/12 04:42 PM (12 years, 19 days ago) |
|
|
This thread has been closed.
Reason: Bumping 5 year dead threads is not an appropriate way to increase post count.
|
|